31 Northern Assateague Island Restoration Project and the Piping Plover: a Case Study in Endangered Species Act Inter-Agency Consultation Anne Hecht and G

UPDATEEndangeredIncluding a Reprint Species of theTechnical latest USFWS Bulletin

May/June 1998 School of Natural Resources and Environment Vol. 15 No. 3 THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

31 Northern Assateague Island Restoration Project and the Piping Plover: A Case Study in Endangered Species Act Inter-Agency Consultation Anne Hecht and G. Andrew Moser

40 Perspective: GoingThrough the Motions: Fish & Wildlife Service's Critical Habitat Moratorium Heather Weiner

47 Response: Endocrine Disrupters and Bald Eagles: A Response Robert W. Risebrough 51 News from Zoos En-w-dms UPDATE

A forum for information exchange on endangered species issues MayIJune 1998 Vol. 15 No. 3

M. Elsbeth McPhee ...... Managing Editor Andrew Hayes ...... Associate Editor Gideon Lachman ...... Web Page Coordinator John Brosnan ...... Subscription Coordinator Terry Root ...... Faculty Advisor

Advisorv Board Richard Block Indianapolis Zoo Susan Haig Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, USGS Oregon State University Nonnan Myers International Consultant in Environment and Development Patrick O'Brien Chevron Ecological Services Hal Salwasser U.S. Forest Service, Boone and Crockett Club

Instructiorufor Authors: The Endangered Species UPDATE welcomes articles, editorial comments, and announcements related to species protection. For k&er information contact the editor.

Subscription Information: The Endangered Species UPDATE is published six times per year, plus occasional special issues, by the School of Natural Resources and Environment at The University of Michigan. Annual rates are $28 for regular subscriptions,and $23 for students and senior citizens (add $5 for postage outside the US). Send check or money order (payable to The University of Michigan) to: Endangered Species UPDATE School of Natural Resources and Environment The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115 (734) 763-3243 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.umich.edu/-esupdate

Cover: Piping plover chick. Photograph by Bill Byme, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). The views expressed in the Endangered Species Drawing by Robert Savannah, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service UPDATE may not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or The University of Michigan. Note: This issue of the UPDATE does not include an The Endangered Species UPDATE was made Endangered Species Bulletin. The Bulletin staff is preparing a possible in part by the David and Lucille Packard special anniversary issue that will appear in the JulyIAugust Foundation, Boone and Cmkett Club, Chewon Copnation, U.S. FWS Division of Endangered issue of the UPDATE. Species Region 3, and Walt Disney World Company. Correction: Jay W. Tischendorf should have been credited for k-8 "chwal @ the puma photograph on page 23 of the MarchlApril issue. Qd u .- - -1 - - printed on recycled paper

- --

30 EndangeredSpecies UPDATE Vol. 15 No. 3 1998 Northern Assateague Island Restoration Project and the Piping Plover: A Case Study in Endangered Species Act Inter-Agency Consultation Anne Hecht and G. Andrew Moser

Abstract Between September 1995 and May 1992, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service engaged in informal and formal consultation regarding effects on the piping plover of a proposedproject to artificially nourish beaches on the northern end ofAssateague Island, Maryland. Key factors contributing to the success of this consultation included: (I)early and active participation in the consultation process by all federal parties, as well as the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Worcester County, and Ocean City, (2) availability of extensive high quality baseline information on piping plover habitat use in the project area, (3) explicit inclusion of plover conservation in the project objectives, (4)formulation of a biological assessment, containing detailed assessments of six project alternatives, early in the consultation process, (5)adoption of a relatively restrainedproject design, and (6)incorporation of a monitoring and response plan in the project design. This monitoring and response plan is intended to detect and correct any deleterious effects of the project on piping plover habitat due to lower-than-anticipated overwash frequency. The project, scheduled for construction over a two to three year period, may not be initiated until the autumn of 1999, and actualproject impacts may not be determinable until several years after completion.

Often heard before they are seen, Section 7 of the Endangered stating whether the activity is likely piping plovers (Charadriusmelodus) Species Act (ESA) mandates federal to jeopardize the continued exist- blend into the pale background of agencies to consult with the U.S. ence of the species and furnishing their open, sandy nesting habitats Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) discretionary recommendations on along the Atlantic Coast beaches. prior to authorizing, funding, or car- how the agency can use its authority These small, well-camouflaged rying out activities that may affect to further the species' conservation shorebirds are easily overlooked on threatened or endangered species (16 (50 CFR Part 402.14). the beach. Since the species' 1986 U.S.C. $1536 and its implementing Section 7 assures that (I)federal listing under the Endangered Spe- regulations 50 CFR Part 402). The actions affecting listed species will cies Act, however, piping plovers requirement to discuss planned ac- be reviewed by the FWS, (2)antici- have attracted the attention of beach tivities with the FWS provides op- pated adverse effects will be docu- managers, recreationists, and gov- portunities to anticipate adverse ef- mented in writing, and (3)those ac- ernment agencies at all levels. When fects. Agencies often elect to engage tivities likely to jeopardize the con- federal agencies, such as the Na- in informal consultation with the tinued existence of any endangered tionalpark Service,U.S. Army Corps FWS to determine if all impacts will or threatened species will not be of Engineers, or the U.S. Coast be beneficial or benign; if adverse implemented. The opinion may also Guard, are active in piping plover effects are foreseen, informal con- include non-discretionary "termsand habitat, the Endangered Species Act sultation may also be used to de- conditions" implementing "reason- prescribes "Section 7 consultation." velop project modifications that will able and prudent measures" to mini- The purpose of this paper is to dis- reduce or eliminate the detrimental mize the impacts of "incidentaltake." cuss a complex consultation for a impacts (50 CFR Part 402.13). For- The process, however, does not guar- potentially controversial project to mal consultation is required if the antee that potential project modifi- identify the factors that contributed final project design may adversely cations to reduce impacts (short of to a project design predicted to be affect listed species, and, at its con- those causing "jeopardy"to species) considerably more benign than simi- clusion, theFWS provides the agency will be adopted, nor that agencies lar projects elsewhere. with a written Biological Opinion will implement conservation recom-

Vol. 15 No. 3 1998 EndangetedSpecies UPDATE 31 Table 1. Piping plover abundance and productivity on Assateague Island National Seashore and the Atlantic Coast, 1987-1996.

Year 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Assateague Island " Breeding Pairs 23 25 20 14 18 24 20 32 44 61 Chicks Fledge @air 1.17 0.52 0.90 0.78 0.41 1.00 1.70 2.41 1.73 1.49 Southern Recovery Unit Breeding Pairs 160 171 199 201 194 172 181 186 217 188 Chicks Fledged/Pair NA 0.85 0.88 0.72 0.68 0.62 1.18 1.37 1.06 1.36 US. Atlantic Coast Breeding Pairs 567 648 724 751 751 790 877 968 1150 1161 Chicks Fledgeflair 1.04 1.11 1.28 1.06 1.22 1.35 1.47 1.56 1.35 1.31 Atlantic Coast Total Breeding Pairs 790 886 957 980 987 1026 1113 1150 1349 1347

a Data from NPS and Maryland DNR 1997. Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina comprise the Southern Recovery Unit. 'Data from USFWS 1997c. Productivity data for the Southern Recovery Unit reflects approximately 62% of breeding pairs, 1988-1996. Productivity data.for U.S. Atlantic Coast reflects approximately 79% ofbreeding pairs, 1987-1996. mendations to off-set project impacts Coast population breeds on ocean Southern (DE, MD, VA, NC) sub- or otherwise contribute to species beaches from Newfoundland to populations gained 62 and 18 pairs recovery. Thus, outcomes of con- North Carolina (very occasionally in respectively, and the Atlantic Canada sultations, in terms of effects on South Carolina). These small shore- subpopulation declined by 34 pairs. species' vulnerability to extinction birds winter primarily along the The Revised Atlantic Coast Piping are highly variable. When opportu- Atlantic Coast from North Caro- Plover Recovery Plan (FWS 1996) nities to reduce impacts of a given lina to Florida, although some mi- established four recovery units- project on a precarious species are grate to the Bahamas, West Indies, Atlantic Canada, New England, New foregone and the species status is and the Gulf Coast (FWS 1996). York-New Jersey, and Southern (DE, unnecessarily moved closer to the The Atlantic Coast piping plo- MD, VA, NC)-and assigned a por- jeopardy threshold, the options for ver population increased from around tion of the recovery population goal future federal projects to avoid jeop- 800 pairs at the time of its 1986 to each. The recovery plan expressed ardy may also be substantially di- listing to approximately 1350 pairs particular concern about the status of minished or foreclosed. in 1995 when this consultation be- plovers in the Southern and Atlantic gan. Biologists attribute most of the Canada recovery units because of Piping plovers and shoreline 1986- 1989 increase in plover num- their small numbers and sparse dis- stabilization bers to intensified survey efforts in tribution over relatively large geo- Piping plovers were added to the two states and not to an actual popu- graphic areas. list of threatened and endangered lation increase. Expanding popula- Loss and degradation of habitat species in January 1986. Three dis- tion figures between 1989 and 1995, due to development and shoreline tinct breeding populations are rec- however, represent bonafide popu- stabilization has been a major cause ognized: Great Lakes, Northern lation growth, but the increase was of the plover's decline on the Atlan- Great Plains, and Atlantic Coast. The very unevenly distributed. Most tic Coast, along with human distur- birds found along the Great Lakes growth occurred in New England, bance and predation. Destruction of are designated as endangered, while where productivity was high and the beach habitat by residential, resort, those nesting on the Atlantic Coast population increased 168%,from 206 and seawall development constitutes and Northern Great Plains are con- to 552 pairs. During this time pe- irrevocable habitat loss for piping sidered threatened. The Atlantic riod, the Mid-Atlantic (NY, NJ) and plovers. By 1974, 47% of coastal

32 Endr,ngeredSpecies UPDA TE Vol. 15 No. 3 1998 barrier acreage in New Jersey was ing snowfencing and planting of veg- with American beach grass classified as "urbanized," 42% in etation at current or potential plover (Ammophila breviligulata). The NPS Connecticut, 35% each in Rhode Is- breeding sites. ended maintenance of these dunes land and New York (Coastal Barri- Not surprisingly, the plight of after the 1970's and adopted a policy ers Task Force 1983). the piping plover is not unique along of allowing coastal processes to re- While "urbanized" barrier Atlantic Coast beaches. Since the claim this portion of the island, but beaches probably represent the most plover's listing, two other beach- effects of the old artificial dunes on extreme alterations of coastal habi- dwelling species native to the Atlan- island topography remained visible tats, less conspicuous changes also tic Coast, the northeastern beach ti- until very recently. impair large amounts of current and ger beetle (Cicindela dorsalis dor- The generally declining plover potential piping plover habitat. The salis) and the seabeach amaranth population on northern Assateague wide, flat, sparsely vegetated barrier (Amaranthuspumilus), a plant, have from 1988-91 is reflective of the beaches preferred by the piping plo- been listed as threatened under the poor productivity there and in the ver are an extremely dynamic habi- Endangered SpeciesAct. Both count Southern subpopulation (Table 1, tat, almost instantly renewed by stabilization and fragmentation of Figure 2). Low productivity on ovenvash from large storm events, natural beach habitats among their Assateague during this time period but their attractiveness to piping plo- primary threats. was attributed to depredation of eggs vers can decline after even a few by red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) years' hiatus in these overwash The Assateague Island, (Patterson et al. 1991) and, espe- events. Especially in the mid-Atlan- Maryland situation cially during 1987-90, to increasing tic and southern portions of the Assateague Island is a 61 kilo- vegetation and corresponding lack plover's range, recently overwashed meter (38 mile) long barrier island of access for flightless chicks to beaches where plover chicks are af- straddling the Maryland-Virginia interior and bayside foraging habi- forded ready-access to unvegetated state line (Figure 1). The southern tats (Loegering and Fraser 1995; bayside flats, shorelines of coastal jetty of the Ocean City Inlet in Mary- MacIvor 1996). ponds, or interdunal patches of wet land forms Assateague Island's During the winter of 1991 - 1992, or moist sand support the highest northern terminus, and a large re- several large Nor'easters overwashed densities of productive breeding pairs curved spit known as Toms Cove much of northern Assateague Island, (Elias-Gerken 1994; Loegering and Hook lies at its southern end. The removing dense vegetation and cre- Fraser 1995; Houghton et al. 1998). entire island is within the Assateague ating large expanses where the is- Roads, summer homes, parking lots Island National Seashore, which land was very sparsely vegetated and other recreation facilities are overlays the Chincoteague National from ocean to bay. Beginning in often situated just behind the Wildlife Refuge on the Virginia sec- 1993, red fox numbers on the island foredunes on Atlantic Coast barrier tion of the island. Ocean City, north also plummeted due at least in part to beaches, and a wide variety of beach of Assateague and sited on the bal- disease (NPS and Maryland Depart- "protection"strategies, including the ance of Maryland's ocean shoreline, ment of Natural Resources 1993, planting of vegetation and erection epitomizes the urbanized barrier is- 1994), although there is some specu- of snowfences, have been employed land. The Maryland portion of lation that the 1991-92 storm events to accelerate the growth of tall veg- Assateague Island, and the subject may have played a role in further etated "mature" dunes and prevent of this consultation, is managed by depressing fox numbers, either by overwash and formation of the National Park Service (NPS). increasing mortality in an already "breaches"(new inlets along the bar- Intensive monitoring of piping disease-ridden population and/or by rier beach system). The higher and plovers has been conducted on the making habitat less hospitable. Pip- wider the beach and dunes become, Maryland portion of Assateague Is- ing plover productivity reached a the larger the magnitude of the storm land since 1986, and almost all plo- five-year high in 1992 and substan- needed to ovenvash the beach and vers breeding there during that time tial additional gains occurred in 1993 re-create early successional habitats. have been located on the northern- and 1994. In turn, the northern The Revised Recovery Plan (FWS most 9 kilometers, referenced here- Assateague piping plover popula- 1996) discourages interference with after as "northernAssateague Island. " tion grew rapidly. By 1995, the natural processes of inlet formation, South of this area, extensive artifi- piping plover population was more migration, and closure, as well as cial dunes were constructed begin- than double the 1988-91 average, beach stabilization projects includ- ning in the 1930's and later planted and by 1996 it had tripled. In that

Vol. 15 No. 3 1998 term restoration of the northern end of Assateague Island and long-term supply of sand to both Ocean City and Assateague Island. The Section 7 consultation discussed in this paper focused on short- term solutions to the perceived shortage of sand on northern Assateague, with the understanding that a long- term plan to rectify the sand budget would follow within five years. The crux of the consultation lies in the following dilemma: available evidence suggests that current vulnerability of northern Assateague Is- land to overwash and breaching is linked to the effects of the jetties. At the same time, however, shoreline stabilization activities, including beach fills and dune construction, have severely impeded natural overwash and inlet formation processes elsewhere, including at nearby Ocean City itself, at the Assateague Island State Park only a few miles to the south, and at countless other At- lantic Coast beaches. Coastal "protection" projects almost always seek to stabilize beaches, and rarely, if ever, to conserve natural overwash processes that form and maintain preferred piping plover habitats.

Atlantic Ocean The Section 7 consultation The Corps, NPS and FWS all L I Figure 1. Assateague Island jurisdictions (Reprinted by permission, Maclvor recognized that presence of the plo- aid Motivans 1998). vers and federal agency involvement would trigger Section 7 consultation year, Assateague piping plovers com- fied concerns about the accelerated, requirements. It was clear that the prised nearly a third of the Southern landward recession of northern large number of plovers on the site Recovery Unit. Assateague Island and vulnerability within an otherwise precarious por- Changes in the topography of to breaching due to cumulative ef- tion of the species' range and the northern Assateague Island also fects on the natural sediment drift important link between plover breed- stimulated concern from the National system frominlet stabilization (Corps ing success and island topography Park Service and nearby local juris- 1994). concomitant issues included posed the potential for major con- dictions that the northern end of the potential for increased flooding of flicts and controversy. The rela- island was becoming increasingly the adjacent mainland during storm tively satisfactory resolution of this vulnerable to breaching. As part of events and accelerated sedimenta- consultation is attributable to at least alarger reconnaissance study review- tion of the Corps-maintained inlet. six factors: (1) early and active par- ing water resource problems in the Five projects were identified for fur- ticipation by all parties, (2) avail- vicinity of Ocean City, the U.S. Army ther investigation during a feasibil- ability of high quality biological in- Corps of Engineers (Corps) identi- ity study, including a one-time short- formation, (3) inclusion of piping

34 En&npdSpecles UPDATE Val. 15 No. 3 1998 plover conservation in the project tions with various experts. Review made several other important ingre- objectives, (4) biologicalassessment and refinement of a critical project dients of this consultation possible. preparation prior to alternative se- component, the Monitoring and Ac- lection, (5) a restrained project de- tion Plan (described below in factor (2) Availability of high quality sign, and (6) provisions for adaptive 6), was accomplished largely through biological infomuztion management. exchange of electronic mail over a Immediately following the three to four month period. The plover's 1986 ESA listing, (I)Early and activeparticipation by Corps, NPS, and FWS were the offi- Assateague Island National Seashore all parties cial federal parties to the consulta- initiated the first of two studies con- Section 7 of the ESA makes it tion, but active paaicipation by Mary- ducted by researchers from Virginia clear that consultation requirements land DNR and local project spon- Polytechnic Institute. Work con- are incumbent on the involved fed- sors, Worcester County and Ocean ductedin 1986-87tooka fairly broad eral agencies. FWS policy mandates City, was key to its resolution. look at piping plover breeding activ- 9 that state wildlife agencies will be Overburdened staff and person- ity and reproductive success with a informed of on-going consultations nel from FWS and other agencies view to identifying major limiting and their input and comments will be often find themselves deferring con- factors (Patterson 1988; Patterson et sought (FWS 1994a). Other non- sultation during the early stages of al. 1991). The second study built on federal entities, especially local project planning, "until the project the first through a more detailed project sponsors, may be allowed to has been clearly defined." Project three-year investigation of piping participate at the discretion of the proponents both in and outside the plover foraging ecology and espe- agency initiating the action. While agencies may encourage this ten- cially the relationship between the Corps, NPS, and FWS certainly dency, on the theory that, as a par- brood-rearing habitats and chick sur- anticipated that consultation would ticular project design gathers mo- vival (Loegering 1992; Loegering take place prior to project approval, mentum and supporters, it will "ac- and Fraser 1995). When "outside" credit must be accorded to the Mary- quire a life of its own" that is resis- research ended after the 1991 breed- land Department of Natural Re- tant to modification. As the discus- ing season, the NPS and Maryland sources' (DNR) Natural Heritage Pro- sion that follows illustrates, how- DNR pooled their resources to main- gram for bringing all interested par- ever, it was the serious engagement tain an intensive high quality moni- ties together for an early discussion in early informal consultation that toring program. In addition to col- of endangered species issues. Fol- lowing a Septem- 70 1 ber 1995 meeting Breeding pairs hosted by Mary- land DNR, the + No. fledged per Corps assumed breeding pair leadership for .c scheduling further s interactions among E agencies. Several g face-to-face meet- C9 ings were held during the following 1 year, but informal consultation, facilitated by the Corps, also included exchange of published ad '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 gray literature and Year summaries tele- Figure 2. Piping plover abundance and productivity on Assateague Island, Maryland phone conversa- (courtesy of S. von Oettingen, FWS).

Vol. 15 No. 3 1998 EndangmdSpeclasUPDAE 35 -- Figure 3. Sparsely vegetated barrier beaches furnish excellent piping plover breeding habitat, but are also susceptible to formation of new inlets. Photograph by Laurie H. Maclvor.

lection and documentation of pair tion has usually not been an integral (4)Biological assessmentpreparation numbers, nest locations, and hatch- a part of project design for similar prior to alternative selection ing and fledging success, detailed projects along the Atlantic Coast, Regulations implementing Sec- annual reports continued to docu- even those affecting NPS lands tion 7 require the action agency to ment such information as brood (Corps 1996, FWS 1995, 1997a) prepare a biological assessment if it movements and use of foraging habi- "Minimizing impacts to the piping is planning a "major construction tats (Maryland DNR 1993; NPS and plovers" was one of seven objectives activity," and the nature and scope of Maryland DNR 1993-95). This in- laid out in the Draft Integrated Fea- the northern Assateague restoration formation in turn, facilitated the sibility Report and Programmatic En- project clearly triggered this require- preparation of the biological assess- vironmental Impact Statement ment. The biological assessment ment discussed under (4), below. (Corps 1997). Perhaps more signifi- must be completed before formal cant, the Corps' discussion of the consultation can be initiated. The (3) Piping plover conservation alternative selection process focused contents are at the discretion of the included in the project objectives almost exclusively on trade-offs be- agency taking the action, though As a "restorationproject" to miti- tween two objectives, minimizing potential items for inclusion are listed gate for adverse effects of past Corps impacts to piping plovers and re- in the Section 7 regulations (50 CFR projects (i.e. the Ocean City jetties) ducing the likelihood of breach, Part 402.12). For the Northern and because it involves land man- and stated, "The Corps and spon- Assateague Restoration Project, the aged the NPS, it is logical that project sors all felt strongly that we needed Corps hired a highly knowledgeable planning would accord relatively to select a plan that met both the consultant to prepare a detailed bio- prominent consideration to impacts mitigation [for risk of breaching] logical assessment. Maps prepared on species listed under the ESA. objective and the piping plover by the consultant depicted changes However, piping plover conserva- constraint." in study area vegetation between

36 EndanmSpecies UPDATE Vol. 15 No. 3 1998 1985 and 1995 and juxtaposed plo- tain sparse vegetation. Exchanges will be used to widen the beach up to ver nest and brood-rearing locations with a variety of outside experts on 100 feet at an elevation of not more with current vegetation and topogra- coastal formation processes and than 8.2 feet (2.5 meters) National phy to illustrate the extreme sensi- coastal plant communities led to a Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). tivity of plovers to habitat character- consensus that an overwash fre- In addition, a low storm berm, not to istics. The biological assessment quency of one event every two years exceed 10.8 feet (3.3 meters)NGVD, provided analyses of six potential would probably be sufficient to pre- with a crestwidth of 16 feet will be project alternatives, and, most im- clude the establishment of woody constructed. All construction work portantly, the draft biological assess- vegetation, while one or more will be done outside the plover breed- ment was completed prior to final overwashes per year may be required ing season, which may run from April consideration of those alternatives to favor annual over perennial her- 1 to August 3 1, although work could by the Ocean City Executive Com- baceous vegetation. Modeling by commence earlier if plover breeding mittee. Thus, the biological assess- the Corps' Coastal Engineering Re- activity ends before August 3 1. ment played an active role in shap- search Center was conducted to de- Importantly, no vegetation planting the project, rather than simply termine berm crest elevations that ing or snowfencing will take place. describing its effects. would still allow significant This project design contrasts sig- ovenvash events, occurring over time nificantly with those commonly (5)A restrained project design intervals on the order of days, on a proposed elsewhere along the At- The fundamental project design frequency of approximately one per lantic Coast, involving construc- dilemma was to decrease the vulner- year. The selected project design tion of artificial "dunes" up to 15 ability of northern Assateague Is- included addition of 1.4 to 1.55 mil- or 18 feet NGVD and planted with land to breaching, without intermpt- lion cubic meters of sand along 5.4 dune grass and snowfencing (FWS ing ovenvash processes that main- miles of beach. Most of this sand 1994b, 1997a, 1997b).

portion of the piping plovers' Atlantic Coast range. Photograph by David Brinker.

Vol. 15 No. 3 1998 EndanmspeclesUPDAE 37 (6) Provisions for adaptive ing coastal processes over the plover's eral years after its completion. As management range, and the concerns for protec- the ultimate "success" of this Sec- While the Corps' modeling re- tion of shoreline property make this tion 7 consultation lies in the post- sults indicate that this project design adaptive management plan an essen- project impacts on the plovers, full will reduce vulnerability to breach- tial project component. evaluation is not yet possible. We ing and allow maintenance of annual are cautiously optimistic that this ovenvash, participants in the con- Conclusions project will achieve its objectives, sultation recognized that these re- Given uncertainties about future including conservation of the piping sults were based on long-term aver- storm patterns and effects on the plovers on northern Assateague Is- age storm frequency distributions. island, it is likely that all participants land. Actual short-term storm patterns are in this consultation retain some ap- quite uneven (Dolan et a1.1988; Jones prehensions about the project plan. Acknowledgments and Davis 1995), with multi-year From a piping plover conservation We recognize the efforts of pri- periods of low or high frequency of perspective, these concerns are mag- mary consultationparticipants Chris- storms large enough to ovenvash the nified by the coastwide practice of topher Spaur and Stacey Marek planned project. A period of low artificially creating and maintaining Underwood of the Corps, Carl storm activity post-project could pro- mature dunes, thereby inducing a Zimmerman of the NPS, Dave mote vegetation establishment and widespread shortage of preferred Brinker and Karene Motivans of the dune-building that would further in- plover breeding habitat. While we Maryland DNR, and Laurie MacIvor crease the magnitude of the storm believe that this plan minimizes the of Woodlot Alternatives. We also needed to ovenvash the island. Con- probability of accelerating succes- acknowledge their supervisors and versely, several large storms could sion of plover habitat on northern agency managers who allowed the erode the island much faster than Assateague, the residual risk would necessary resources to be devoted to predicted, causing a breach before be considerably less worrisome from the consultation process. the long-term project could be imple- a species' survival perspective if other mented. Hence, both piping plover projects incorporated similar re- Literature cited advocates and shoreline stabiliza- strained design and provisions for Coastal Barriers Task Force. 1983. Final environmental impact statement: tion interests retained fundamental adaptive management. Unfortu- Undeveloped coastalbarriers. Department uneasiness with the plan. nately, this project is the exception, of the Interior, Washington, D.C. The solution lay in incorpora- not the rule in that regard. Dolan, R., B. Hayden, and H. Lins. 1988. tion of a monitoring and action plan It is critical to recognize that the Mid-Atlantic coastal storms. Journal of to detect and respond to island efficacy of the above described six Coastal Research 4(3): 417-433. Elias-Gerken, S .P. 1994. Piping plover changes that might depart substan- factors is profoundly dependent on habitat suitability on central Long Island, tially from those intended. This plan the quality of implementation. The New York barrier islands. M.S. Thesis. specifies monitoring, including is- fundamentalunderlying determinant Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State land topography, ovenvash activity, of this Section 7 consultation's out- University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 247 PP. plover distribution and productivity, come was the good faith participa- Houghton, L.H., J.D. Fraser, and S.P. Elias- vegetation, and fox distribution to be tion of all agencies. Collecting, ex- Gerken. 1998. Short-term effects of the conducted until the long-term resto- changing, reviewing, and discussing Westhampton interim storm damage ration is implemented. Quantitative baseline information and draft docu- protection project on piping plover habitat "performance indicators" were es- ments represented amajor time com- at the Village of Westhampton Dunes and Westhampton Beach, New York. Interim tablished to define unacceptable im- mitment. We are hopeful that con- Report for the 1997 Breeding Season. pacts to both piping plovers and sultation on alternatives to provide Virginia Polytechnic Institute, breach risk, and fundamental prin- long-term restoration of the Blacksburg, Virginia. 81 pp. ciples regarding the mitigation strat- Assateague Island sediment budget Jones, G.V. and R.E. Davis. 1995. Climatology of nor'easters and the polar egies that might be employed were will be able to build on the short- jet. Journal of Coastal Research ll(4): outlined. While it is hoped that addi- term restoration consultation. 1210-1220. tional manipulation of the island will This project, scheduled for con- Loegering, J.P. 1992. Piping plover be unnecessary, the extreme sensi- struction over a two to three year breeding biology, foraging ecology and tivity of ovenvash processes to small period, may not be initiated until fall behavior on Assateague Island National Seashore, Maryland. M.S. Thesis. changes in topography, the substan- of 1999, and actual project impacts Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State tial reductions in naturally function- may not be determinable until sev-

38 End.mspeCiesUPDATE Vol. 15 No. 3 1998 University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 247 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994b. PP. Biological opinion on the Westhampton Loegering, J.P. and J.D. Fraser. 1995. interim storm damage protection project. Factors affecting piping plover chick Islip, New York. 77 pp. and appendices. survival in different brood-rearing U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service. 1995. Letter habitats. Journal of WildlifeManagement dated March 9 to Colonel R.J. Sperberg 59(4): 646-655. from Field Supervisor L.K. Gantt. MacIvor, L.H.1996. Biological assessment: Raleigh, North Carolina. 4 pp. Ocean City water resources feasibility U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service. 1996. Piping study, immediate restoration of plover (Charadn'us melodus), Atlantic Assateague Island. Prepared for the U.S. Coast population, revised recovery plan. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore Hadley, Massachusetts. 258 pp. District. Woodlot Alternatives, Inc., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997a. Topsham, Maine. 44 pp. Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act MacIvor, L.H. and K.A. Motivans. 1998. Section 2(b) report, Fire Island Inlet to Biological assessment: Ocean City, Moriches Inlet and west of Shinnecock Maryland and vicinity water resources Inlet interim storm damage protection feasibilitystudy, impacts to piping plovers projects. Reach 1: Fire Island Inlet to and seabeach amaranth from long-term Moriches Inlet. Islip, New York. 47 pp. sand management component. Prepared and attachments. for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997b. Baltimore District. 67 pp. and annex. Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Section 2(b) report, Fire Island Inlet to 1993. Breeding biology and management Moriches Inlet and west of Shinnecock of piping plovers on Assateague Island Inlet interim storm damage protection National Seashore, Maryland, 1992. projects. Reach 2: Moriches Inlet to Annapolis, Maryland. 42 pp. Shinnecock Inlet. Islip, New York. 46 National Park Service and Maryland pp. and attachments. Department of Natural Resources. 1993- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997c. 1997. Management and monitoring of 1996 Status Update - U.S. Atlantic Coast the piping plover at Assateague Island Piping Plover Population. Sudbury, National Seashore, Berlin, Maryland. Massachusetts. 4 pp. Annual reports. Patterson, M.E. 1988. Piping plover breeding biology and reproductive success on Assateague Island. M.S. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 131 pp. Patterson, M.E., J.D. Fraser, and J.W. Roggenbuck. 1991. Factors affecting piping plover productivity on Assateague Island. Journal of Wildlife Management 55(3): 525-531. U.S. Army CorpsofEngineers. 1994. Ocean City, Maryland and vicinity water resources study reconnaissance report. Baltimore District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1996. Fire Island to Montauk Point, breach contingency plan, executive summary and environmental assessment. New York District. Anne Hecht is an endangered species biologist U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Restoration of Assateague Island: Draft Northeast Regional Office and team leader, U.S. integrated interim report and Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Recovery Team. G. environmental impact statement. Andrew (Andy) Moser is an endangered species Baltimore District. biologist located in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994a. Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office. Anne Notice of inter-agency cooperativepolicy Hechtcanbereached attheU.S.Fishand Wildlife regarding the role of state agencies in Service,Weir Hill Road, Sudbury, Massachusetts Endangered Species Act activities. 01776. G. Andrew Moser can be reached at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 177 Admiral Federal Register 59(126): 34274-34275. Cochrane Drive, Annapolis, Maryland 21401.

Vol. 15 No. 3 1998 Perspective

Going Through the Motions: Fish & Wildlife Service's Critical Habitat Moratorium Heather Weiner

Abstract Critical habitat is an unused but potentially powerful tool to achieve recovery of endangered species. Unfortunately, none of the almost 180 species listed in the last 2 years has had its critical habitat identified or evenproposed. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is using every excuse to avoid designating andprotecting critical habitat as intended by Congress. Service oficials have come out of the closet and admitted that they have no intention of designating critical habitat, unless under court order. But even court orders may have limited influence since Service oficials convinced Congress to limitfunding for new listings and critical habitat designations. With adequatefunding, enforcement, and good public relations, critical habitat designation could provide both public and private resource managers with the clear guidance needed to recover our nation's declining wildlife.

The Endangered Species Act weak justifications for avoiding po- cal features (I) essential to the con- (ESA) equips us with tools to com- litically difficult but ecologically servation of the species and (11) which bat habitat loss and encourage habi- important decisions. may require special management tat restoration, but one tool, critical considerations or protection" (16 habitat designation, sits rusting in How critical is critical habitat? U.S.C. $1532 (5)(A)). In this case, the toolbox while the U.S. Fish and How critical is critical habitat? the sea lion's food sources-pollock, Wildlife Service (FWS) uses ev- Habitat is food for breeding Steller Atka mackerel and Pacific cod-are ery rationale to avoid implement- sea lions (Eumetopiasjubatus) in the essential features of its habitat. En- ing this potentially powerful sec- Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea. vironmentalists are now arguing in tion of the law. FWS's self-im- The National Marine Fisheries Ser- Greenpeace v. NMFS that industrial posed moratorium on the designa- vice (NMFS) designated critical trawlers are netting too many fish tion of critical habitat has become habitat for this highly endangered within the designated zones, thus painfully obvious. None of almost marine mammal in 1993. Critical adversely modifying critical habitat 180 species listed in the last two habitat is a zone around key islands and undeniably hindering the recov- years has had its critical habitat where the sea lions mate, feed, and ery of the Steller sea lion. identified or even proposed. raise pups (see Figure 1). A pub- The overall purpose of critical Behind closed doors, FWS offi- lished map detailing critical habi- habitat is to provide asafe and healthy cials successfully lobbied Congress tat zones alerts the public, com- area for the recovery of a declining to zero-out appropriations for criti- mercial fisheries, and the agencies species. Even if an area is not cur- cal habitat designations in the 1998 that regulate them, that those areas rently occupied by a species, it may and 1999 budgets. The Clinton Ad- are of great biological importance still be protected if the area is "essen- ministration is now coming out of to the sea lion. tial for the conservation [i.e. recov- the closet and admitting that it has no Critical habitat designation in- ery] ofthespecies" (16U.S.C. $1532 intention of designating critical habi- cludes, however, much more than (5)(A)). For instance, when the U.S. tat for any species unless under court just lines on a map. Congress de- Forest Service (USFS) wanted to order (FWS 1998). FWS's excuses fined critical habitat as "the specific allow a mine near designated critical for its critical habitat moratorium- areas within the geographical area habitat for salmon in Idaho, it argued impossibility, no added benefit, in- occupied by the species. . . on which that because no salmon were cur- creased threat, and expense-are are found those physical or biologi- rently in the critical habitat streams

Vol. 15 No. 3 1998 the proposed mine would cause no Going through the motions threat to the species (such as through harm. The court in Idaho Rivers Despite the crucial nature of criti- poaching by collectors or deliberate United v. NMFS disagreed. " [Tlhe cal habitat, FWS has refused to pro- vandalism);or (2) such designation temporary absence of the species vide habitat protection unless under of critical habitat would not be ben- (due to water quality problems as- court order. Few terrestrial species eficial to the species (50 CFR sociated with the [previous] Black- have had critical habitat designated §424.12(a)(l)). bird Mine) does not provide a ba- in the last few years, even though the The Federal Register shows that sis for allowing further degrada- ESA requires the Secretary of Inte- all of the 178 species added to the tion of critical habitat. Were that rior to designate critical habitat at endangered species list by FWS from the case, the species would never the same time as a species is listed as April, 1996 through April 1998 have be able to return." endangered or threatened. fallen into one of these two catego- The court was correct. Without The ESA allows only two ex- ries. Of the 178 newly listed spe- designating, protecting, and revital- ceptions: (1) designation may be cies, 112 are supposedly in danger of izing critical habitat, we confine dan- postponed for one year if critical over-collection or vandalism, and gerously low numbers of endangered habitat is not immediately "deter- the other 66, according to the Ser- wildlife to degraded areas. Without minable," or (2) critical habitat des- vice, would receive no added con- protecting areas in which growing ignation may be denied if the desig- servation benefit from critical habi- populations may expand, endangered nation is "not prudent." FWS itself tat designation (see Table 1). species recovery becomes much explained that "not prudent" would It seems unlikely that 100% of more difficult and unlikely occur in either of two rare situations: all newly listed species truly deserve (1) identification of critical habitat to be in these two limited categories. is expected to increase the degree of Congress intended that these loop-

Alaskan Habitat of The Endangered Steller Sea Lion

Figure 1. Alaskan habitat of the endangered Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) (reprinted with permission from Greenpeace).

Vol. 15 No. 3 1998 Endan~Spec~UPDATE 4 1 Table 1. Reasons for not designating critical habitat for tat, like listing, is limited listing funds are spent on the the last 178 newly listed species. a "Section 4" ac- first two tier activities, the critical tivity and is habitat backlog swells with each new Species type Vandalism/ No conservQtion funded under the listing decision. As of April 1998, collection benefit same line item.) the Federal Register showed that only Mammals 7 1 Initiated by Sen. 118 of 1135 species listed in the U.S. Birds 1 0 Kay Bailey have designated critical habitat. Aquatic/fih 7 13 Hutchison (R- For the fiscal year 1998 budget, Phts 95 52 TX), the listing rather than ask for more money to Insects 2 0 and critical habi- repair the ailing listing and critical tat "moratorium" habitat program, FWS exacerbated TOTAL 112 66 was in part a re- its own funding situation. First, the action to the pro- Service asked for a tiny budget in- posed designa- crease of $0.19 million for the listing holes be used sparingly: "It is only in tion of critical habitat for the golden- program, for a grand total of $5.19 rare circumstances where the speci- cheeked warbler in Texas. The Ser- million for the entire year - less than fication of critical habitat concur- vice quickly withdrew the proposal 7% of the entire endangered species rently with the listing would not be in October 1994, after public allega- budget, and less than any other beneficial to the species"(U.S. House tions that 20 million acres in 33 Texas agency budget request since the Bush Report 1978). FWS has stretched counties would be condemned by years (see Figure 2). Second, the the rare exceptions into the rule as it the designation (FWS 1995). (In Service's own officials actively lob- goes through the motions of barely fact, golden-cheeked warbler habi- bied for a legislative cap on that implementing the law. tat is actually a fraction of this area, money. The result is legislative lan- and critical habitat designation has guage prohibiting the Department of The FWS "impossibility" no direct impact on private lands). Interior from spending more than rationale Despite the withdrawal, Congress $5.19 million on all listing and criti- FWS officials often blame fund- brought all final listings and desig- cal habitat activities in fiscal year ing constraints fortheir0- 178 record. nations to a screeching halt. 1998. The intention of the cap is to For example, in Southern Utah Wil- When the listing and critical prevent courts from ordering the d-, d-, theFWS habitat moratorium was lifted, FWS Service to transfer money from other is refusing to comply with a three- had accrued a backlog of proposed Department of Interior (DOI) pro- year-old court order to make final listings for 243 species. With a mere grams-such as travel or construc- critical habitat decisions for two spe- $5 million appropriated by Congress tion line items-into the listing and cies of fish, the woundfin minnow for the 1997 fiscal year, FWS critical habitat program. (Plagopterus argentissimus) and scrambled to come up with a solu- FWS officials have candidly Virgin River chub (Gila seminuda), tion to the backlog. The short-term admitted that they requested the cap in Utah's Virgin River. FWS con- answer was to develop a priority to prevent a "critical habitat melt- tends that its scarce funding is al- system for the listing program. Ac- down." Their explanation is that ready dedicated to listing decisions, cording to FWS, which recently con- court orders from the many active and that Congress prevents the court tinued this priority system through and pending critical habitat lawsuits from ordering the agency to spend fiscal year 1999, the guidelines are could impinge upon DO19 budget. more money on the program, mak- necessary to "guidethe allocation of By tying its own hands, the Service ing new critical habitat designa- limited listing resources" (FWS hopes the courts will consider criti- tions impossible. Few people real- 1998). The Service's most recent cal habitat designations legally "im- ize that FWS, itself, manufactured guidelines prioritize all listing ac- possible." this "impossibility." tivities into three tiers. Emergency According to staff of the Interior The impossibility rationale origi- listings are in Tier 1; final listing Subcommittee for the House Appro- nated when Congress first prohib- decisions, candidate decisions, peti- priations Committee, Congress ini- ited the expenditure of any money tionprocessing, anddown-listing and tially resis ted the legislative funding for final listing decisions or critical delisting species are in Tier 2. Criti- cap. A late night phone call from habitat designations fromApril1995 cal habitat designations are alone in FWS officials to the chairman of the through April 1996. (Critical habi- the third andlast tier. Because FWS's subcommittee did the trick, but Con-

Vol. 15 No. 3 1998 gress noted its misgivings in the plus a legislative cap on grossly in- Not On Our Federal Lands CongressionalRecord. "Asrequested adequate funding-knocks out any In about half of these critical by the Department of Interior, the chances for critical habitat designa- habitat decisions, FWS concluded managers reluctantly have agreed to tion for those listed species still with- that the species occur primarily on limit statutorily the funds for the en- out critical habitat and for any spe- federal lands, so that critical habitat dangered species listing program" cies newly listed in the next year. provisions duplicate the protections (Congressional Record 1997). already provided by Section 7 of the To make matters worse, for fiscal The "no added benefit" ESA. Section 7 of the ESA prohibits year 1999, FWS has requested cap rationale federal agencies from doing two language that limits funding only for If FWS has tied its own hands things: "adversely modifying or de- protective activities. FWS has moved by lobbying for less funding, then stroying critical habitat" and "jeop- politically popular activities such as it has built its own guillotine with ardizing the continued existence" of delisting and down-listing, as well as the "no added benefit" excuse. As a listed species. Congress intended listing of foreign species, to other line mentioned above, 66 of the 178 these to be two different legal stan- items with much greater anduncapped newly listed species have no criti- dards, but in 1986 the Reagan Ad- funding. The politically difficult deci- cal habitat because FWS decided ministration issued new regulations sions, such as listing, up-listing and critical habitat would not be ben- giving them similar definitions: critical habitat designation, would be eficial, and therefore "not prudent." JEOPARDY: An action that capped at a measly $7.4 1million (U.S. FWS's explanation of its decisions would "reduce appreciably the like- Department of Interior 1998). is a classic "heads I win, tails you lihood of both the survival and re- FWS officials believe that this lose" shell game. covery of a listed species." one-two punch-the priority system ADVERSE MODIFICATION: "A direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed species" (emphasis added, 50 CFR 9402.02). These standards did not meld into one immediately. When it designated critical habitat for the northern spotted owl in 1992, the Bush Administration explained that the standards were still different: "The Act's definition of critical habitat indicates that the purpose of critical habitat is to contribute to a species' conservation, which by definition equates to recovery. . . Thus, the adverse modification standard may be reached closer to the recovery end of the survival continuum, whereas, the jeopardy standard tra- '92 (Bush) '94 (Clinton) '96 (Clinton) '98 (Clinton) ditionally has been applied nearer to the extinction end of the continuum" Fiscal Year Presidential Budget Request (millions) (FWS 1992). ESA Listing & Critical Habitat Program Only As recently as 1994, FWS as- + indicates spending cap language serted that protection of critical habitat "may shorten the time needed to Prepared by EarthjusUce Legal Defense Fund contact Heather Welner, 202/667-4500 for InfonaUon achieve recovery" (FWS 1994). For the last few years, however, Figure 2. Endangered Species Listing and Critical Habitat Program- the Clinton Administration has Presidential budget requests. changed course and argued that any

Vol. 15 No. 3 1998 EndangmdSpecles UPDAE 43 Not on our private lands either FWS declined to designate critical habitat for the rest of the 66 "no added benefit" species because those species occurred primarily on private lands. FWS claims that because critical habitat protections apply only to federal activities, critical habitat designation would result in little benefit for species found on private lands. The court recently rejected this argument in Conservation Coun- cil of Hawai'i v. Babbitt, in which FWS refused to designate critical habitat for 245 plant species in Hawai'i: "[Elven if no federal activity currently occurs on the land, there may be such activity in the future." Indeed, the newest and most common federal activity in endangered species habitat on private lands is FWS's approval and issuance of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs, or incidental take per- mits). HCPs authorize pri- Figure 3. Stellar sea lion (Eumetopiasjubatus). Photo courtesy of Greenpeace. vate landowners to modify and destroy endangered spe- federal action that would meet the dams "jeopardize" the these salmon cies habitat through timber harvest- adverse modification standard would species, NMFS asserts that irnmedi- ing, agriculture, development, min- also trigger the jeopardy standard. ate survival is an adequate standard ing, or other land uses. Fish and The collapse of the two prohibitions (NMFS gives salmon in the Colum- Wildlife Service estimates that "By into one low standard plainly ig- bia River Basin as low as a 50% 2002,27 million acres ofhabitats for nores the intent of Congress and chance of recovering). Although the endangered and threatened species, emasculates several sections of the agency analyzed how many fish and species of concern, [will be] statute which Congress clearly would survive the trip around the dams, included in Habitat Conservation viewed as important. often in barges or trucks, NMFS ig- Plans" (FWS 1997). The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of nored the impacts of the dams and The only existing lawsuit con- Appeals is currently considering a their reservoirs on many essential fea- cerning an HCP challenges a luxury legal challenge to this regulatory col- tures of salmon critical habitat (water condominium resort for adversely lapse in American Rivers v. NMFS. quantity, substrate, cover/shelter,food, modifying Alabama beach mouse Conservationists are suing NMFS vegetation, space, and spawning (Peromyscus polionotus) critical for ignoring the adverse effects of gravel). Environmentalists argue that habitat. Although the condomini- hydroelectric dams on salmon criti- consideration and protection of criti- ums do not rest directly on top of the cal habitat in the Columbia River cal habitat is needed to recover, and frontal dunes designated as critical Basin. In its analysis of whether the eventually delist, the salmon. habitat, they do open the fragile dunes

44 EndangeredSpeciesUPDA TE Vol. 15 No. 3 1998 up to foot traffic from thousands of documentation of increased threats. mydas and Eretmochelys imbricata, visitors. In addition, four huge con- But little documentation, beyond respectively), and coho salmon dominium towers are being con- unconfirmed anecdotes, really ex- (Onchorhynchus kisutch). NMFS structed between the frontal dunes ists. For example, one of the few officials have privately confirmed and secondary dunes blocking beach plant species with designated criti- that the cost of critical habitat desig- mouse passage between these areas cal habitat in Hawai'i, Carter's nation may involve only internal staff during and after storm flooding. In panicgrass (Panicum carteri), is lo- time. The math is simple: two effect, the beach mouse's critical cated on a small island in Oahu that months of time from a $90,000 full habitat is rendered useless by the is easily accessible to the public. time employee is a mere $1 5,000. construction permit. AlthoughFWS Despite the fact that this habitat has In some cases critical habitat argues in Ft. Morgan Civic Asso- been designated for over 14 years, designation can be costly, especially ciation v. Babbitt that the beach there have been no reports of in- when the agency uses outside con- mouse can survive a few months of creased vandalism or collection. In sulting fms or universities to sur- construction activity, scientists are fact, FWS regional staff admit that, vey and map species habitat and to now wondering if the mouse will at the very least, critical habitat des- conduct the legally required eco- ever be able to recover without use ignation alerts private landowners nomic analysis. The northern spot- of critical habitat. that they may need an incidental take ted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) pennit and helps prevent unautho- critical habitat designation has been The "increased threat" rized habitat loss. estimated to cost about $1 million, rationale but few species provoke the incred- The most often-used excuse, in- Theexpenseexcuse ible public scrutiny that the spotted creased threat of vandalism or over- Why has the Clinton Adrninis- owl did. In addition, the 10th Circuit collection, is difficult to argue - few tration made an unofficial policy Court of Appeals recently affirmed want to increase the possibilities for decision to stop funding and imple- that an environmental assessment (or, poachers or collectors. In Conserva- menting the critical habitat require- in some cases, Environmental Im- tion Council of Hawai'i v. Babbitt, ments of the Endangered Species pact Statement) must be completed the District Court for Hawai'i threw Act? One mythical mantra repeated for critical habitat designations pur- out this rationale for not designating throughout the departments and Con- suant to the National Environmental critical habitat for 245 highly endan- gress is that critical habitat designa- Policy Act. (Catron County v. FWS). gered plant species, stating that FWS tions are prohibitively expensive. As Nevertheless, occasionally high needed to provide more than just FWS explains in its 1999 budget price tags are not reasonable justifi- speculation of increased vandalism justification, "Criticalhabitat desig- cations for shirking the law. Simply or collection. In the court's mind, nations are extremely costly, and put, FWS should stop requesting in- critical habitat has both benefits and many more species could be pro- adequate appropriationsand reinvent drawbacks. "FWS must consider tected and conserved through listing how it handles critical habitat. whether designation may prevent an actions." The Service has imagined Streamlining the bureaucracy by us- inadvertent act of destruction as well that "a single critical habitat desig- ing agency economists, scientists, as whether it may encourage a delib- nation could consume up to twenty and geographers to do the required erate act of destruction." The imag- percent of the total listing appropria- analysis saves both time and money. ined threat of vandalism must be tion," i.e., $1 million (U.S. Depart- NMFS had its in-house economists weighed against the known benefits ment of Interior 1998). and biologists do the analysis for the of notification to the public and to In truth, critical habitat designa- green and hawksbill sea turtle criti- federal agencies. tions are usually quite light on the cal habitat designation, and FWS FWS has generated internal agency's budget. NMFS has made used the United States Geological policy guidance for the "increased considerable progress in designat- Survey and its Biological Research threat rationale" because it is so ing critical habitat in the last 18 Division (formerly the National Bio- heavily used. Responding to the 9th months, either proposing or finaliz- logical Survey) to do the mapping Circuit Court's directions in NRDC ing critical habitat designations for and economic analysis for the Mexi- v. U.S. Department of Interior to wide-ranging species like the can spotted owl critical habitat. In reconsider designating critical habi- Umpqua River cutthroat trout fact, FWS's costs from losing nu- tat for the California gnatcatcher, (Onchorhynchus clarki), green and merous court battles over critical FWS recently began requiring better hawksbill sea turtles (Chelonia habitat designation are probably

Vol. 15 No. 3 1998 greater than the costs of going ahead Acknowledgments and designating critical habitat when Indiana University student Sa- it is legally required. rah Peters provided valuable research assistance for this article. Critical issues for critical habitat Literature cited It should come as no surprise American Rivers v. NMFS, CIV No. 96- that the real reason the Clinton Ad- c,00384-MA, (pending, 9th Cir.). ministration refuses to designate and New Mexico v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife enforce critical habitat is that, like Service, CIV No. 93-730 HB (D.N.M) most environmental issues, critical aff'd by 75 F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996). habitat is viewed through a political Congressional Record, October 22, 1997, prism. Critical habitat designation H9018. Conservation Council of Hawai'i v. Babbitt, draws a circle around an individual's CIV No. 97-00098 ACK (D. HI), March property and without proper infor- 9, 1998. mation, it might look like the walls Czech, B. andP.R. Krausman. 1997. Public are closing in. It is no wonder Rep. Opinion on Species and Endangered Species Conservation. Endangered Frank Riggs (R-CA) wanted to waive Species UPDATE 14(5-6). designation of marbled murrelet criti- Fl, cal habitat in the redwoods owned CIV No. 97-0691-CB-C (pending, S.D. by the Maxxam Corporation, now AL) . known as the Headwaters forest. Greenpeace v. NMFS, CIV No. 98-0492-C, (pending, W.D. WA). We forget that Rep. Riggs' ef- Idaho Rivers Unitedet al. v. NMFS, No. 94- forts in the 104th Congress to pass a 1576-R (W.D. WA) Nov. 9,1995. critical habitat exemption for the League of Conservation Voters. 1996. Headwaters forest failed by a re- Environmental Scorecard for the 104th Congress. sounding 257-164 vote (LCV Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Scorecard 1996). We also forget Deot. of the Interior, 113 F.3d 1121 (9th that the majority of Americans (84% (3.1997). according to recent polls) support Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. current or stronger endangered spe- Babbitt, CIVNo. 93-$2376 (pending, D. CO). cies laws (Czech and Krausman U.S. Dept. of Interior. 1998. Budget 1997). Yet the Clinton Administra- Justifications and Annual Performance tion backed an ESA reauthorization Plan FY 1999, Fish and Wildlife Service. proposal to expand the exemptions U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Designation of Critical Habitat for the for critical habitat designation (Sen- Northern Spotted Owl. 57 Federal ate bill 1180), and continues to use Register at 1822. all possible excuses to avoid imple- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. menting this section of the law. Designation of Critical Habitat for Least No matter how FWS twists the Bell's Vireo. 59 Federal Register at 4846. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Facts arguments, it is clear that critical about the Endangered Species Act. June1 habitat on public lands, private lands, July. and in our oceans is important. In- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Final creased threats and expenses are pre- Listing Priority Guidance. 63 Federal Register at 25502. texts for an Administration fright- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Strategic ened by political controversy. With Plan For Sept. 30,1997-Sept. 30,2002 (at proper funding, enforcement, and -. . good public relations, critical habi- U.S. House Report. 1978. No. 95-1625 at 17 Heather Weiner is a policy analyst and attorney at I,. tat could provide both private and Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund. She also co- public resource managers with the chairs the National Endangered Species Coalition. Contact Heather at: Earthjustice Legal Defense clear guidance needed to recover Fund, 1625 Massachusetts Ave, NW. Suite 702, endangered species. Washington, DC 20036.

Vol. 15 No. 3 1998 In Response

Endocrine Disrupters and Bald Eagles: A Response Robert W. Risebrough I should like to thank the editor widespread use; polychlorinated bi- Environmentalcontamination by the of the EndangeredSpecies UPDATE phenyls (PCBs), not yet known to be persistent biocides, although declin- for the opportunity to comment on environmental contaminants of ing, continues to affect populations the article "Endocrine Disruption: greater significancethan the biocides, of sensitive species. How then are Hidden Threats to Wildlife" by could be purchased in railway-car the remnant 'old' effects, those caused Michael Smolen and Theo Colborn amounts for incorporation into a di- by the chemicals whose uses ended a of the World Wildlife Fund in the versity of industrial products. generation or more ago, to be distin- SeptemberIOctober 1997 issue. The In that year, the spraying pro- guished from the 'new' "hidden conclusion of this article is that a grams to "eradicate" Dutch elm dis- threats" that are the subject of the very wide range of wildlife species ease in Milwaukee were continuing article by Smolen and Colborn is now threatened by a diverse as- to kill countless numbers of song- The example of a 'new' threat sortment of synthetic chemicals in birds, prompting a group of citizens that is discussed in greatest detail is the environment. Their effects are to petition the Wisconsin Depart- the continuing lower productivity of initially hidden but in the longer term ment of Natural Resources. The bald eagles nesting on the shores of reproductive abnormalities and dis- Hearing Examiner ruled that he had the Great Lakes, even though "Egg- ruptions in other essential life pro- no legal authority to stop the spray- shell thinning and outright mortality cesses result from the "stealth dam- ing program, but pointed out that a are no longer visible" (Smolen and age caused by interference with en- law on the Wisconsin books prohib- Colborn 1997:6). The balance of the dogenous messengers" (Smolen and ited the use in that state of any sub- scientific evidence, however, indi- Colborn 1997: 10). stance that, as a consequence of its cates that this is a remnant 'old' ef- Thirty years ago, this statement use, entered the waters of the state fect; in part, the evidence comes would have been at least partly true, and caused harm to wildlife. The from a population of bald eagles with an important qualification: the stage was set for a confrontation reintroduced to Santa Catalina Is- effects at that time were hardly hid- between the environmentalists, rep- land in southern California that con- den. Peregrine falcons (Falco resented by the Environmental De- tinues to suffer from severe effects peregrinus) had become extinct as a fense Fund, and the pesticide indus- of contamination by DDE, the envi- breeding species over half of the try. In less than a decade the uses of ronmental derivative of DDT that country. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus the major chlorinated hydrocarbon has been responsible for all, or al- leucocephalus) populations were pesticides had ended in the USA and most all, of the eggshell thinning rapidly declining. The state bird of most of the other industrializedcoun- documented since 1946. The argu- Louisiana, the brown pelican tries; PCBs were no longer manufac- ment derives from multiple sources. (Pelecanus occidentalis), once nu- tured in North America and a pro- 1) The bald eagle was the first merous, was no longer breeding in cess, inevitably imperfect, to pre- species for which an effect at the the delta of the Mississippi. Every- vent future 'PCBs' (chemicals that population level induced by an envi- where, fish-eating birds were in are persistent, mobile in the environ- ronmental contaminant was docu- trouble. A process of extinction, ment, with unpredictable biological mented. A retired Canadian banker, without precedent in evolutionary activity) was implemented by the Charles Broley from Winnipeg, be- history, was threatening the integ- Toxic Substances Control Act. gan to band nestling bald eagles in rity of ecosystems. Recovery of the wildlife popu- Florida in 1939. By 1946, he had In 1968, six years after Silent lations affected by these contami- reached 150 young eagles a year. Spring (Carson 1962), there was as nants, although dramatic for per- But in 1947 the number of young yet little control over the application egrine falcons and most populations eagles dropped sharply and contin- of vast quantities of the chlorinated of the bald eagle, has not happened ued to drop in the following years hydrocarbon pesticides then still in overnight, and is not yet complete. (Broley 1958).

Vol. 75 No. 3 7998 EMmSpeCksUPDATE 47 2) Beginning abruptly in 1947, David Garcelon of the Institute for 8) Scanning electron microscopy the weights of eggshells and the egg- Wildlife Studies. The first egg ap- detected small areas of gross struc- shell thickness of Florida baldeagles peared in 1987, but it broke shortly tural abnormalities of the eggshell dropped by 15-19 % (Hickey and after being laid. Shell fragments (Figures 1 and 2), associated with Anderson 1968; Anderson and with portions of the yolk were re- gross changes of the organic crystal- Hickey 1972), coinciding with the trieved for analysis in my labora- lization sites on the eggshell mem- sudden depression of productivity tory. The California Bald Eagle brane (Bland 1990; Risebrough observed by Broley. Working Team was to meet the fol- 1993). The rapid rate of water loss 3) The eggshell weight and the lowing week on Santa Catalina Is- and the embryonic deaths were shell thicknesses of other species of land; there was a certain urgency to thereby explained; these structural raptorial birds also declined abruptly report both the contaminant levels abnormalities could also have pro- in 1947 in other areas of North and the degree of shell thinning. On duced a weakening of the eggshell America (Hickey and Anderson a lipid basis DDE concentrations that resulted in breakage in the ab- 1968; Anderson and Hickey 1972) were five times higher than the sence of any significant thinning. and in Britain (Ratcliffe 1967). threshold level of reproduction ef- 9) There are no DDE effects on 4) Like the brown pelican and fects. On the day of the meeting, the structure and thickness of egg- the prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), Sam Sumida of the Western Foun- shells of many bird species. Particu- the bald eagle is very sensitive to dation of Vertebrate Zoology, mea- larly if the primary effect of DDE is DDE. Reproduction invariably fails sured shell thickness. It was al- on the organic crystallization matri- whenever concentrations in the eggs most normal. We had no explana- ces, a 'disruption' if any of an endo- exceed a few parts per million, tion why the egg had broken. In crine function could be a secondary whether the relationship is expressed 1988 a second female produced an effect. Moreover, virtually any meta- logarithmically with a pronounced egg which also broke in the nest bolic function is related one way or effect even at the lowest levels of almost immediately after being another to an endocrine activity. In DDE (Wiemeyer et al. 1984, 1993) laid. Its shell thickness was also this context therefore, the use of the or by a model that assumes a rnini- almost normal, and the DDE levels term 'endocrine disruption' in the mum effect at the lowest levels with were high (Garcelon et al. 1989; absence of any definitive demon- a sharp decrease above a threshold Jenkins et al. 1994). stration of the cause(s) of eggshell (Nisbet 1989). 7) Thereafter eggs have been thinning and structural abnormali- 5) Unlike species such as the collected as soon as possible for ar- ties would not appear to be justified. brown pelican, whose eggs break tificial incubation, initially at the 10) The number of young bald above a critical level of thinning Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Group eagles fledged per breeding pair in thereby accounting for a major por- and currently at the San Francisco the Great Lakes and along rivers tion if not all of the reproductive Zoo. Only if exhaustive measures supporting runs of anadromous fish failures, productivity of bald eagles are taken to control the rate of water increased from 0.23 in 1977 to 0.87 is, unexpectedly, not related to shell loss from the egg is the embryo able in 1993 (Bowerman 1993). A goal thinning, but is nevertheless strongly to survive. David Garcelon reports of 1.0 young fledgedfoccupied nest related to DDE concentrations that one of this year's breeding males has been established by the Northern (Nisbet 1989). This DDE effect on was hatched in 1992from a deformed States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan reproduction is therefore distinct egg artificially incubated by the Santa (Grier et al. 1983). This recovery is from eggshell thinning. Cruz Predatory Bird Group in 1992 remarkable, particularly to those of 6) Bald eagles disappeared from while his parents incubated a dummy us who were bird-watching on the the southern California islands dur- egg on Santa Catalina Island. Like shores of the Great Lakes in the ing the 1950s (Kiff 1980) when his parents before him, he and his 1950s and who followed the later wastes from a DDT factory in Los mate incubated dummy eggs after population declines of bald eagles Angeles, containing many tons of their own deformed eggs were re- with dismay and alarm. Smolen and DDT, were taken in barges to sea moved. This year's chicks, how- Colborn, however, look at the re- throughout the 1950s for offshore ever, died at the pipping stage, de- maining 13% of the unfilled glass dumping. Following recovery of the spite all the efforts of the zoo per- and predict catastrophe. brown pelicans in the mid-1970s, sonnel to nurse them through the It is not therefore necessary to they were reintroduced to Santa hatching process (D.K. Garcelon, evoke a hypothesis that new, even Catalina Island beginning in 1980by personal communication). more insidious, chemicals with "hid-

48 EndangemlSpecies UPDATE Vo1. 15 No. 3 1998 an 'early warning' of a new universal environmental threat or a unique, local event? A possibility that the effects were local only comes from a recent report (Semenza et al. 1997) that the nematicide DBCP had been manufactured at a nearby pesticide manufacturing facility. Like the di- eldrin and related biocides from a factory on the Rhine that killed seabirds along the Netherlands coast, and like DDT in factory wastes in Los Angeles and Alabama that grossly contaminated local environments, DBCP from factory waste could have entered the waters of Lake Apopka. This pesticide was banned in the US when it was found to cause sterility among male workers in California (unused supplies were then sent, shamefully, to Costa Rica). Hopefully, experi- ments to resolve this question are currently underway . Smolen and Colborn mention the "feminization and de-masculinization of male birds", referring to a study by Ian Nisbet and his colleagues of common terns of a colony in New Bedford Harbor that is highly contaminated by PCBs (Nisbet et al. 1996). The "feminization" refers to Figures 1 and 2. Scanning electron micrographs of a fragment of an the appearance of female-type cells in eggshell from Pinnacle Rock on Santa Catalina Island, 1992. A depression the testes of male embryos. Not on the outer surface (above), associated with sites of water loss during incubation, is paired with a reduction in calcification on the inner surface mentioned is that the degree of (below). From Risebrough (1993); micrographs by Dana Bland. feminization could not be correlated with the concentrations of den" effects will threaten the future lation will be maintained-and con- contaminants, and that so far at least it survival of the national emblem. The tinue to fly free in the Channel Is- has been reported only in embryos; low production of young eagles in lands-until the DDE contamination whether or not the phenomenon in this Florida beginning in 1947, the con- finally clears. Meanwhile, the de- colony is related to contaminants is yet tinuing lower production on the fective eggshells will continue to to be demonstrated. For the layman it shores of the Great Lakes, and the provide a living example of an un- is reasonable to believe that absence of any natural reproduction predictable deleterious effect of an "reproductivity and survivorship are in the marine environment of south- environmental contaminant. compromised" in this population of ern California can all be considered Each of the other 'new' effects terns, but a scientist can hardly make as 'old' effects. Until DDE contami- cited by Smolen and Colborn deserves such a statement in the absence of any nation drops further in the Great a comparable, detailed comment for supporting information. The Lakes, depression of bald eagle re- which there is no space in this issue of production of young is high, and the production will continue. As long as the Endangered Species UPDATE. colony has survived many years of the Institute for Wildlife Studies is Certainly, something happened to the high contamination. able to continue its programin south- sexuality of the alligators of Lake Documentation of the exist- ern California, the bald eagle popu- Apopka in Florida; was this, however, ence of feminized adult male com-

Vol. 15 No. 3 1998 EndangeredSpeciesUPDA TE 49 mon terns, or of any other species be involved, deserves to be expanded. California and Arizona, USA. Pages 75 1- of birds for which "feminization" 756 in B.-U. Meyburg & R.D. Chancellor, Meanwhile, however, in the absence eds. Raptor Conservation Today. The Pica has been claimed, would be the of supporting data, the central thesis of Press, Buteo Books, Shipman, VA. critical first step in the establish- Smolen and Colbom-that many wild- Kiff,L.F. 1980. Historicalchangesinresident ment of credibility. life species, including populations of populations of California Islands raptors. The argument for simplified tech- Pages 651-673 in D.M. Power, ed. The endangered species, are now threat- California Islands: Proceedings of a nologies with fewer, or no, synthetic ened by new 'hidden' factors-lacks Multidisciplinary Symposium. Santa chemicals has its own, defensible, ra- credibility. Barbara Museum of Natural History. Santa tionale. It is not, however, the same Acknowledgments Barbara. argumentthat prompted theDDT hear- Studies of the structure of bald Nisbet, I.C.T. 1989. Organochlorines, ings in Madison thirty years ago, - that reproductive impairment, and declines in eagle eggshells by scanning electron Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus persistent, mobile, bioaccumulating microscopy were supported by the populations: Mechanisms and dose- and biologically active chemicals such U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the response relationships. Pp. 483-489 in B.- as DDT and the PCBs have no place in Bodega Bay Institute. U. Meyburg & R. D. Chancellor, eds. the longer-termtechnology. This tech- Raptors in the Modern World. World Working Group on Birds of Prey and Owls. nology does have room for any combi- Literature cited Berlin, London, and Paris. nation of synthetic chemicals that does Anderson, D. W., and J. J. Hickey. 1972. Nisbet, I. C. T., D. M, Fry, J. J. Hatch, and B. not threaten either human health or Eggshell changesincertainNorth American Lynn. 1996. Feminization of male common wildlife. The public interest requires birds. Proc. 15th Intern. Ornithol. tern embryos is not correlated with exposure Congress:514-540, that all participants in the continuing to specific PCB congeners. Bull. Environ. Bland, D.C. 1990. Therelationship of organic Contam. Toxicol. 57:895-901. debates about synthetic chemicals dis- and inorganic components of eggshells to Ratcliffe, D. A. 1967. Decrease in eggshell tinguish between these two separate DDE content in eggs of California brown weight in certain bids of prey. Nature and distinct arguments. pelicans and bald eagles. M.Sc. thesis. 215:208-210. The chemical analysis of envi- University of California, SantaCruz. 43 pp. Risebrough, R.W. 1993. Scanning electron Bowerman, W.W. 1993. Regulation of bald microscopy studies of eggshells of bald ronmental samples, however, con- eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) eagles from Santa Catalina Island, 1992, tinues to detect unidentified contami- productivity in the Great Lakes Basin: an and of Southern California peregrine nants of undetermined significance. ecological and toxicological approach. falcons.AReportt0theU.S. Fish& Wildlife Chromatograms frequently contain Ph.D. thesis. Michigan State University, Service. The Bodega Bay Institute, East Lansing, MI. many more peaks representing uni- Berkeley. Broley,C.E. 1958. The plight ofthe American Semenza, J. C., P. E. Tolbert, C. H. Rubin, L. dentified organic contaminants than bald eagle. Audubon Magazine 60:162- J. Guillette, Jr., and R. J. Jackson. 1997. peaks that have been identified in 163;171. Reproductive toxins and alligator previous programs. Older chemists Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton abnormalities at Lake Apopka, Florida. remember the first electron capture Mifflin Co., Boston. Environ. Health Perspectives 105: 1030- Garcelon, D.K., R.W. Risebrough, W.M. 1032. chromatograms in the 1960s with Jarman, A.B. Chartrand, and E.E. Littrell. Smolen, M., andT. Colbom. 1997. Endocrine the unidentified peaks that turned 1989.AccumulationofDDE by baldeagles disruption: hidden threats to wildlife. out to be the PCBs. Vigilance to Haliaeetus leucocephalus reintroduced to Endangered Species UPDATE 14:6-10. protect both wildlife and human SantaCatalinaIslandin southern California. Wiemeyer, S.N., T.G. Lamont, C.M. Bunck, Pages 491-494 in B.-U. Meyburg and R.D. C.R. Sindelar, F.J. Gramlich, J.D. Fraser, health from any unanticipated ef- Chancellor, eds. Raptors in the Modem and M.A. Byrd. 1984. Organochlorine fect of chemical technologies is World. World Working Group on Birds of pesticide, polychlorobiphenyl, andmercury required now more than ever. But Prey and Owls. Berlin, London and Paris. residues in bald eagle eggs - 1969-79 - the most significant of the "new Grie~,J.W., J.B. Elder, F.J. Gramlich, N.F. and their relationships to shell thinning and threats" to wildlife proposed by Green, J.V. Kussman, J.E. Mathisen, and reproduction. Archives of Environmental J.P. Mattsson. 1983. Northern states bald Contamination andToxicology 13529-549. Smolen and Colborn are already a eaglerecoveryplan. U.S. Departmentofthe Wiemeyer, S. N., C. M. Bunck, and C. J. half-century old and should not be Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Stafford. 1993. Environmental confused withunanticipated effects Washington, D.C. contaminants in Bald Eagle eggs - 1980-84 of newer chemicals. Hickey, J. J., and D. W. Anderson. 1968. -and further interpretationsof relationships Chlorinated hydrocarbons and eggshell toproductivity andshell thickness. Archives Serious andimportantissues there- changes in raptorial and fish-eating buds. Environmental Contamination and fore remain. The argument, for ex- Science 162271-273. Toxicology 24: 213-227. ample, that genetic defects alone can Jenkins, J.M., R. M. Jurek,D. K. Garcelon, R. not account for the abnormalities in Mesta, W. G. Hunt, R. E. Jackman, D. E. Robert W. Risebrough is an employee of The Driscoll and R. W. Risebrough. 1994.DDE Bodega Bay Institute and can be reached at 27 11 the Florida panther population, and contamination and population parameters Piedmont Avenue, Berkeley CA 94705, or [email protected]. that one or more contaminants might of Bald Eagles Haliaeetus leucocephalusin

50 EndangeredSpecies UPDATE Vol. 15 No. 3 1998 NEWS FROM ZOOS

News ABOUT Zoos

More than 122 million people visited AZA (American Zoo and Aquarium Association) member zoos and aquariums in 1997. That attendance exceeds the number of individuals who attended professional football, basketball, ice hockey, and baseball games combined. Professional Sports Attendance 1997 National Football League (NFL 1998) 19,490,886 Major League Baseball (MLB 1998) 63,168,689 National Hockey League (NHL 1998) 17,640,529 National Basketball Association (NBA 1998) 21,656,348 TOTAL: 121,956,452

Harpy Eagle Released in Panama Rainforest

An endangered Harpy eagle (Harpia harpyja), hatched at the San Diego Zoo last October, was successfully released into the Panamanian rainforests in May as part of a captive breeding and re-introduction effort. The national bird of Panama, its population began to decline after the construction of the Panama Canal in 1914. Its slow reproductive rate and large home range made it one of the first species to be virtually eliminated due to human activities (such as deforestation and poaching). Today only a few nesting pairs are known to remain in the Panamanian forests. Since 1989, the San Diego Zoo and The Peregrine Fund have been working together to release young harpy eagles into its native habitat. A young harpy pair, hatched at The Peregrine Fund's World Center for Bird's of Prey in Boise, Idaho, was released earlier this year. A fourth chick, hatched at the San Diego Zoo this January, will be released later this summer, creating two new pairs of harpy eagles in Panama. To avoid imprinting on humans, the eagle was fed via a harpy eagle hand puppet. Now, until the birds learn to hunt on their own, biologists place food high in the forest canopy, where the eagles live. Biologists living in the rainforests near the release site monitor the birds daily. Harpy eagle chicks are dependent on their parents for more than two years so biologists fill the released birds' parent role until they mature. Radio transmitters allow scientists to track the birds as they travel through dense forests.

Rare Bongo Antelope Embryos Implanted into Wild Elands

In a new effort to manage and repopulate species of endangered animals, a team of scientists from the Audubon Institute Center for Research of Endangered Species (CRES) are the first to implant frozen embryos from captive animals in one continent into wild animals in another. The experiment involved freezing 20 microscopic African bongo embryos from CRES and the Baton Rouge Zoo in liquid nitrogen and transporting them to the Mount Kenya Game Ranch, a private wildlife preserve. There, female elands (Tragelaphus eurycerus) had two embryos implanted once it was determined that theiruteruses were at the right stage to accept the embryos (Taurotragus oq~x).(Elands occasionally bear twins, so if both develop there won't be a problem.) Bongos and elands are similar in size but differ in behavior, environment and activity level. As a consequence, the results will be analyzed behaviorally as well as biologically. Since the animals would be reintroduced into the wild from birth, this experiment also negates the criticism of current reintroduction methods-that captive-raised animals may lack survival skills and natural immunity to diseases or suffer from the difficulties of acclimatization. Team members will return to Kenya in February to gauge the results. CRES members hope the work will continue for the next 5-10 years, with two trips a year.

Information for News From Zoos is provided by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association.

Vol. 15 No. 3 1998 EndangeredSpecies UPDA 7E 5 1 Bulletin Board

IUCN Red List of Threatened logical change in U.S. parks and wild- leland.stanford.edu/group/CCB/Newsor Plants life refuges. by contacting the congress organken, More than one out of eight plant These reports point to the urgent Teresa Zuniga or Ramiro Perez, Apdo. species worldwide is at risk of extinc- need to reach an international agree- C-2 11, Managua, Nicaragua; Tel.: (505) tion, according to the most compre- ment to reduce greenhouse gas emis- 277-2177; Fax: (505) 27@3561;E-mail: hensive scientific assessment ever as- sions, and slow the effects of global [email protected] .ni. sembled on the status of the world's warming on the earth's biological di- plants. This announcement was made versity. For more information on both Society for Conservation on April 8 at a press conference at the of these reports, visit WWF's Web site Biology Smithsonian's National Museum of at http://www.wwfus.org. July 13-16. The annual meeting of Natural History as the 1997 IUCN the Society for Conservation Biology Red List of Threatened Plants was The Second Congress of the will be held at Macquarie University, released. The IUCN Red List reveals Mesoamerican Society Sydney, Australia The scientific ses- that 12.5%, or 34,000, of the world's July 6- 10. The Second Congress sions will consist of a plenary session, vascular plant species are threatened of the Mesoamerican Society for Biol- "Biodiversity Conservation: Myths and with extinction ogy and Conservation will be held in Realities",22 symposia, four workshops The Red List is available for $45 Managua, Nicaragua hosted by the and a number of open sessions. A com- (plus shipping and handling) fromThe Universidad CentroamericanaDepart- plete up-to-date list of symposia can be New York Botanical Garden, Scien- ment of Agricultural Sciences. The 5- obtained by consulting the Web site at tific Publications, Bronx, NY 10458- day congress will include symposia http://www.bio.mq.edu.au/consbioorby 5126; Tel.:(718)817-8721;Fax:(718) on: conservation of neotropical mi- writing: Society for Consemation Biol- 817-8842); E-mail: gratory birds, management of protected ogy, c/o Key Centre for Biodiverstiy and scipubs @nybg.org. areas, management and conservation Bioresources, School of Biological Sci- of marine turtles, data centers and ences, Macquarie University, Sidney, U.S. ecosystem assessments biodiversity monitoring, and manage- NSW 2109, Australia. World Wildlife Fund (WWF)has ment and conservation of wetlands. Announcements for the Bulletin Board are published two assessments regarding More information is available at welcomed. Some itemsfrom the Bulletin threatened ecosystems in the U.S. and http://www.uca.edu.ni/infogral/ Board have been provided by Jane Villa- Lobos, Smithsonian Institution. how global warming is causing eco- congresoma.htm or http: www-

Non-Profit Organization Endangered Species U.S. POSTAGE PAID Ann Arbor, MI UPDATE Permit No. 144

School of Natural Resources and Environment The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115